After battling thyroid cancer, Justice William Rehnquist passed away Sept. 4. Rehnquist was appointed by President Nixon and served as chief justice for 19 years. He heard cases from Roe v. Wade and the 2000 election.

Rehnquist was a clear thinking constructionist who believed the court shouldn’t create law, but interpret the constitution. John Roberts, a former aide to Rehnquist, can be expected to come from the same mould.

Roberts has been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It seems like Roberts looks down on activist judges, scoffs at the notion of a fundamental right to be free of discrimination, (that is not to say he doesn’t agree with it) and seems to support school prayer.

While some may argue with his style they cannot disagree with the smiling personality. Nor can one argue that he isn’t a perfect candidate for the high court. He writes Latin and French, he has written scathing opinions. The Washington post writes: “On April 30, 1984, Roberts wrote to oppose a presidential award that was to have been given to (Michael) Jackson for his efforts against drunk driving. Roberts particularly objected to award wording that described Jackson as an “outstanding example” for American youth.”

I think everyone can agree that Michael Jackson is far from an “outstanding example” for American youth. If only all of our Justices had the same foresight.

Some people have a problem with Roberts being raised as one of the “have’s” of society. Perhaps they have that same problem with nearly every congressperson, all presidents and basically every person in federal government.

Roberts doesn’t come across as vague to me. Some of his most controversial opinions are flying all over the news, and do not seem to be the work of a weak minded wishy-washy Judge. He has argued 39 cases before the court. It remains to be seen how he does in the Senate hearings.

Roberts seems to be a near perfect replacement for Rehnquist. The balance of power in the Supreme Court will stay as it has. It seems most Democrats do not oppose the appointment of Roberts, but are just looking for a way to lash out against the president. The real fight will be when President Bush nominates someone to replace the moderate justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a seat many people seem to consider to be a “woman only” seat.